Subject: Ticket status, June 27, 2006

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 07:47:29 -0700

The following tickets are listed as open on the tracker:

#1166 Quotations from RFCs and I-Ds
    Rough consensus that all good-faith unmodified excerpts should be 
permitted, but
     significant doubt that we can
     make the rules say so without allowing things we don't want to allow

#1167 Excerpt labelling
    Rough consensus that excerpts SHOULD be labelled by source, and 
modified text should
    be clearly marked as such

#1168 Non-code excerpts
    Subsumed under #1166

#1169 Modified excerpts
    Consensus that modifications to make use of code in implementations 
are OK.
    No consensus on modifications to non-code.
    Not clear if consensus exists on reuse of code for other purposes 
than standards implementation

#1175 How can code be distinguished from non-code?
    Suggested resolution appears to be held as reasonable.
    One person argues strongly for including pseudocode as "code".

#1199 What license should the IETF grant to third parties on contributions?
    No consensus - dependent on the purpose of the IETF's grant of license.

#1212 Copyright statements in I-Ds and RFCs: Meaning?
    IETF Trust can claim copyright on the boilerplate. It's probably 
unwise to claim more.

#1237 Should incoming rights be published as 3978 delta or replacement?
    Consensus on replacement, I believe.

#1238 Should secretariat ask for IPR clarification from IPR holder on 
3rd party IPR disclosures
    Consensus from Dallas seemed to indicate that we should get a 
serious consideration of legal
    risk of such followup - if there is no risk, it should be done.

#1239 Understanding intent of participants
    Jorge Contreras' exposition seems to say that there is an agreement 
between the IETF and the
    IETF participant, that the only part not in writing is the part 
where the participant accepts the
    agreement, and that the participant is still bound by the agreement.
    The terms "contract" and "agreement" are interchangeable in a legal 
sense.

#1246 Incoming rights: How much should be said about outgoing rights?
    As little as possible, I think.

#1273 How do we usefully define "excerpt"?
    This involves pagebreaks, linebreaks, reflowing paragraphs, fixing 
typos and so on.
    No discussion on which to base a guess at consensus.

#1282 Should multiple copyright statements be permitted in I-Ds and RFCs?
    Simon's draft has been posted, but not many have commented so far.

_______________________________________________
Ipr-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipr-wg

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 11:03:18 -0700

Harald - I have asked you for several new item tags to be added - either add
them or formally say why - its time you and this management team were
accountable.

Todd Glassey

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 12:45:32 -0700

Harald -

Lets also be real clear about this - and that is:

o-  if the IETF wants to claim it has OSP (Online Service Provider Status)
so that it is immune from damages from its fraudulently publishing and
relicensing the use of IP it doesn't own or that there are IPR claims to,
then the IETF ***MUST*** have a way of stopping people's illicit use of its
IP's other than forcing a US Court to react and issue a court order to
correct the deficiencies in the IETF's current release documents.

This means the "you get to use it forever" licenses must go away... and
the use licenses have more normal copyrights on them.

This is how it works from my LAY understanding...

    1)    Any and all IP's published by the OSP must have a copyright that
allows for the recall and rescinding of the access and use license. That
means that the IETF cannot issue a use license for "any and all" uses, as
the use period must be capable of being terminated by decree from the IETF.

    2)    The OSP must also have a working policy and stated practice of
disseminating that it is only a publishing authority and the release it is
publishing against is the one per the submission and that any real IP owners
claims are against the IP Owners.

    3)    The submission process must inform and get approval to publish on
those grounds - that being that the publishing will be withdrawn if any IP
complaints surface until such time as the issue is resolved. But that abuse
of this WILL have legal ramifications for those abusive parties including
disciplinary sanctions and the preventing of any future participation with
the IETF based on the filing of illegal or contested IP's since this
immediately opens the IETF to legal attack.

Todd Glassey

---

From: Harald Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 00:47:11 -0700

> them or formally say why - its time you and this management team were
I see the following mails from you with "NEW" in the subject over the 
last month or so:

May 5: "Internet Draft Description - New Language?"

May 25: "PROPOSED NEW ISSUE... In Submitting a Document there are TWO 
pieces of IP being considered for Publication."

June 6: "Possible NEW item - Additional IPR Timing Boilerplate."

June 6: "NEW Item... - Use Limitation Caveat Statement."

June 6: "NEW ITEM - Since Patent Rights are tied to first publication 
dates,    the IETF's publishing documents starts those timers."

June 9: "New Release components - OpenSource submissions Guide"

June 21: "NEW ISSUES - The SAFEHARBOR & COPYRIGHT Protections require 
a    formal take-down policy otherwise the IETF is always liable"

I replied to your May 5 note, explaining why I did not see any reason to 
pursue it.

None of your other notes elicited any response from anyone.

In rescanning them, I find some of it restating of what's already known 
- the "two pieces" note just restates with different words the 
separation between the copyright in a document and any IPR on the 
technology; anyone who doesn't understand patent timers has no business 
trying to patent something.

Others, such as the "Use Limitation" note,  seem to try to create 
specific boilerplate for a situation where the WG has not yet figured 
out what it wants - and the WG has indicated quite strongly that 
boilerplate text is something it wants legal counsel to work out, not 
the WG.

Given the result of processing the last batch of "new ideas" you sent 
in, I decided to not add items to the tracker where you proposed it and 
no other WG participant responded.

You have long ago exhausted my patience with your barrage of 
suggestions, your style of argument, and your refusal to concede that 
others' view of the IETF may hold validity. I continue reading them only 
because my role as WG chair requires me to.

                                Harald

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 15:43:59 +0200

>    Simon's draft has been posted, but not many have commented so far.

Personal opinion: I think this is the right thing to do. One comment
on the proposed text:

> 2.  Revised Section 5.4 of RFC 3978
> 
>    Replace the last paragraph in section 5.4 (reproduced in the previous
>    section) with the following:
> 
> 
>         Additional copyright notices are permitted in IETF
>         Documents, to denote the owner of copyrighted material
>         within the document.

I'd be happier if we added something like:

        Such notices cannot restrict the IETF's rights with respect to
        derivative works.

(I intend that to include both the IETF's ability to make derivative
works and its ability to grant outgoing rights to make derivative
works.)

     Brian

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 06:54:04 -0700

Harald - THIS is NOT a NEW ISSUE - Its the freaking LAW and if you think you
can engineer around the law you are a fool. More importantly IMHO you are a
serious danger to the IETF and its not being sued for Dumb Things that you
and this WG do too try and set aside the legally established minimums for
Copyright Submissions.

Todd Glassey

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:52:53 +0200

> works and its ability to grant outgoing rights to make derivative

Sounds reasonable to me.  I've made the change in the source for the
-01 draft, subject to comments from others.

/Simon

PS.  The live document is available from
<http://josefsson.org/bcp78broken/draft-josefsson-ipr-notices.txt>.

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 08:12:12 -0700

Brian and Simon
Why are derivative works necessary for the IETF's Standards Process? - What
specifically does the need for Derivatives have to do with the standards
process? There are implementations of the two ports necessary for a standard
but beyond the implementation rights as part of the standards process what
else is needed.

Todd Glassey

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Simon Josefsson" <[email-masked]>
To: "Brian E Carpenter" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: draft-josefsson-ipr-notices-00 [Re: Ticket status, June
27,2006]

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 22:36:47 -0400

No Todd, it is your interpretation of the law.
You are as entitled as anyone else to draw interpretations of what 
you read in and about the law.
However, you are not entitled to assert that we must accept your 
interpretations.  Nor are you entitled to assert that we must act on them.

My own conclusion, personally, is that you are wrong about what the 
items you cite mean.
In fact, I believe that to undertake many of the items you suggest 
would distort and damage the processes significantly, and potentially 
even harm the community.

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

---

From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:40:54 -0700

Hey Joel - all you have to do is to have Jorge say that the IETF is an OSP
and that he assures all of us as a Formal Opinion that the IETF has no
issues with its use grants or research exemptions. I will bet you
money Joel that we hear nothing...

So Joel let me also note that you tried to paint my words as my opinion
rather than summations or paraphrases of case law...  but gee Joel, you were
wrong and you still have not succeeded in changing anything I said, however
you have just succeeded in painting yourself as someone clearly VERY
threatened by the truth.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 7:36 PM
Subject: Re: "New" issues not pursued (Re: Ticket status, June 27, 2006)

> interpretations.  Nor are you entitled to assert that we must act on them.

Ah so then you and this group gets to vote on which US and EU laws its going
to build process for and which laws it plans on ignoring?  Oh yeah I
remember - you and the IETF are above the law...

> My own conclusion, personally, is that you are wrong about what the

This is the same conclusion you made by evaluating the P&A I cited as well
as the case law?

> would distort and damage the processes significantly,

Oh you meant the IETF's policies that don't allow the IETF to meet global IP
laws
as all other major SDO's have?

> and potentially

"the community" - jesus is this the Prisoner? Port St Marion? - the "Don't
hurt our IETF Crowd" you know. Thats also
the same bunch of IETF participants that scream "Please, this is our Bread
and Butter isnt it?". that's the "You cant change my IETF,  you are
threatening my family's livlihood..."

right Joel... you crack me up.

---

From: Florian Weimer <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 22:36:21 +0200

* todd glassey:

> process?

Because you don't want to read a -bis RFC that is a long list of
instructions like this:

| In section 5.3, throughout the second paragraph, "SHOULD" is to be
| replaced with "MUST".

This the way laws are updated in Germany, and it leads to ambiguities
from time to time.  I'd rather like to avoid that for protocol
standards.  IIRC, Technical Corrigenda for ISO standards are issued in
this format, too, and for moderately complex updates, nobody actually
uses them (but relies on the consolidated forms).